If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

GPL, imho, isn't "software freedom". It's "software liberty"--in other words, it grants us the liberty of using code (or, liberates--makes free--that code) which would otherwise be unavailable because the modifications would not be provided back to us.

We are, of course, "Free" to use the source code which were granted access to however we want, with the "Restriction" that we must liberate the modifications we make, the same as everyone else.

You really have to learn the difference. Free is not the same as free software.

Well I really know the difference between GPL and BSD, MIT... and now I know what you mean by 'free software' collocation and it's tricky and ugly because it's less free.

Originally Posted by funkSTAR

Yeah sure. "If Digia fucks software freedom we can fuck it even furter by cancelling out copyleft from GPL licensed code." WHOA A VERY NICE DEAL SECURING FREEDOM. what a load of shit.

I think that you don't dislike Digia in particular. You just don't like public domain! (at all). You're like Richard Stallman's preacher!
Tell me father is f.e. Clang & LLVM eternal evil?

Explain to me why are you bothered by this, because in the case that Qt is released under BSD you can fork it under GPL. Really. This is the biggest mystery for me. You can always go BSD->GPL. Are you afraid that developers would chose BSD? If yes, isn't there a reason for it?
Are you afraid that some company could create a successful commercial framework from it? Well brace yourself, I've got some news for you. Qt was not created by your church, the FSF, but by Trolltech, a company (successful or not). It was the creators' good will and certainly some other reasons to provide a opensource version.

You really have to learn the difference. Free is not the same as free software.

According to wikipedia and gnu.org, Qt, because it is licensed under LGPL, is free software. You can use a different definition of free software when you discuss with yourself. When discussing with the rest of the world, the "rest of the world"'s definition applies.

Well I really know the difference between GPL and BSD, MIT... and now I know what you mean by 'free software' collocation and it's tricky and ugly because it's less free.

I think that you don't dislike Digia in particular. You just don't like public domain! (at all). You're like Richard Stallman's preacher!

As I understand it Stallman has no problem with Qt after they released the gpl version many years ago.
According to fsf shouldn't the LGPL they use today be worse than the old GPL release. As I understand it according to fsf you should only use LGPL if you need it to compete with some "evil" libs. Your goal should be to release libs with GPL

As I understand it Stallman has no problem with Qt after they released the gpl version many years ago.
According to fsf shouldn't the LGPL they use today be worse than the old GPL release. As I understand it according to fsf you should only use LGPL if you need it to compete with some "evil" libs. Your goal should be to release libs with GPL

Stop quantifying one license better or worse than another. They serve different purposes. LGPL means that any modifications anyone but Digia makes to qt need to be made publicly available. GPL means that anything using the code must be made publicly available beyond just the project itself. As a gui framework, it is prohibitive to ask commercial businesses to use the GPL, and in the case of qt, they might very much prefer the commercial license just to "be safe" in not violating the LGPL tenants about modification of qt itself.

For software freedom, the GPL means you can't ever think about using it without staying open, but that just means a bunch of commercial entities won't look at it. In the context of the qt project itself, LGPL is great because it means anyone modifying needs to contribute back improvements (except for Digia, but if they stopped updating the LGPL qt KDE by contract gets the proprietary qt under a BSD license they can release themselves to keep it open).

Stop quantifying one license better or worse than another. They serve different purposes. LGPL means that any modifications anyone but Digia makes to qt need to be made publicly available. GPL means that anything using the code must be made publicly available beyond just the project itself. As a gui framework, it is prohibitive to ask commercial businesses to use the GPL, and in the case of qt, they might very much prefer the commercial license just to "be safe" in not violating the LGPL tenants about modification of qt itself.

For software freedom, the GPL means you can't ever think about using it without staying open, but that just means a bunch of commercial entities won't look at it. In the context of the qt project itself, LGPL is great because it means anyone modifying needs to contribute back improvements (except for Digia, but if they stopped updating the LGPL qt KDE by contract gets the proprietary qt under a BSD license they can release themselves to keep it open).

FSF think GPL is a better licence. They don't think the possibility of closed source program using the libs is a good thing.